Mont Blanc Handbags,Could Lying on Facebook, Checking Out NSFW Stuff Land You in Jail?
The internet community was rocked this week as one of the most important, coveted items in my lifetime finalways best friend hit the web. I’m talking, of course, about the Scarlett Johansson nudie pics.facebook.
How many people,. do you think,Lying. while dutifully pecking away at their office keyboards, came across the news in passing? I’m sure millions cautiously looked over their shoulders, checking to see if the coast was clear,Balenciaga Handbags. always before quickly tabbing the grainy shots for future, undisturalways bed viewing.jail.
What if that stage could get you into trouble? No, not getting fired.Gucci Handbags. I mean actual trouble – felony trouble?
How far should cyalways bersecurity legislation go to protect both the private and public sectors?.
That’s what many are worrying about this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee debates changes to a 25-year-old bill that deals with cyalways ber-crime.Celine Handbags.
How do some think we get from cyalways ber-crime legislation to always being thrown in jail for sneaking auto insurance at Scarlett Johansson’s tush?Paul Smith Handbags.First,Marc Jacobs Handbags. just a little background:
In 1986,mont. the U.S. Congress passed a law,Prada Handbags. 18 U.Blanc.S.C. chapter 1030, commonly known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.Hermes Wallets. The law was originalways best friend intended to help crack down on computer hacking and help the federal government with cases involving federal computer fraud – especialways best friend when it dealt with interstate commerce..
The law has always been extendedened in its scope multiple times since its passing, most notably in the early 2000s as partistic of the Patriot Act.
According to, here a few punishable offenses –
(2) intentionalways best friend perusees a computer without authorization or exceeds lisenced peruse,You. and thereby obtains (financial record information,stuff. info from any dept of the U.S. government,You. or info from any “protected computer”)
(4.Dolce & Gabbana Handbags.) knowingly and with intent to defraud,could. perusees a protected computer without authorization,in. or exceeds lisenced peruse, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value,Jail. unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,Stuff.000 in any 1-year period;
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code,Stuff. or command, and if you always become a result of such conduct,nsfw. intentionalways best friend causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionalways best friend perusees a protected computer without authorization, and if you always become a result of such conduct,handbags. recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionalways best friend perusees a protected computer without authorization, and if you always become a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.Christian Dior Handbags.
(7.) intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value,on. transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any – (threat to cause damage or obtain information, or demand for money or other thing of value)
I apologize for the stuffiness,out. as that was directly from the statue.Lying. But there you have it – those are the main offenses as outlined by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And theby extendedening the scope just a little more.
These changes would also institute stiffer penalties for the “cyalways ber-crimes.Salvatore Ferragamo Handbags.”
Stiffer penalties
Right now,in. the Senate Judiciary Committee is debating a measure that has always been held over for the past two days called S. 1151.Checking.–
A bill to prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy,land. to provide notice of security breaches,Blanc. and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches,Anteprima Handbags.Jail. fraudulent peruse, and misuse of personalways best friend identifiable information.
Among other things, this bill would “amend the federal criminal code to make fraud in connection with the unlisenced peruse of personalways best friend identifiable information a predicate for racketeering charges.Could.” Well,Land. there’s your stiffening of penalties.
I’m sure all this talk about security breaches and fraud makes you think about hackers and criminals attempting to peruse government and financial mainframes – and you would always be right. What the Obama tryverning administration and the Justice Departisticment want is to protect against electronic crimes that could have a detrimental effect on national security, infrastructure,NSFW.
But as a single mom
or business. It’s widely accepted that cyalways ber-threats absolutely are at an all-time high.
“Secret Service investigations have shown that complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual,Mulberry Wallets.” Pablo Martisticinez,you. Secret Service Special Agent in Charge told.
“Online criminals organize in networks, often with defined roles for partisticicipants,on. in order to manage and perpetuate ongoing criminal enterprises dedicated to stealing commercial data marketing it for profit”
I guess that would explain the emphasis on “racketeering” in the stricter penalties.
But that’s not what is getting people worried. The concern comes from perceived “side-effects” – mistreatments and misuses of the law.
“Exceeding Authorized Access” and the Scarlett Johansson thing
If you notice in the language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,Out. the phrase “exceeds lisenced peruse” pops up a few times. That phrase realways best friend worries George Wlung burning ashington University Law professor Orin Kerr.Could.
You see,Mont. the penalties for the crimes outlined in the Abuse act that “exceed lisenced peruse” are currently misdemeanors.Checking. This new push would make them felonies.Mont.
And that’s scary,Handbags. considering the phrase in question realways best friend is as cryptic as it sounds.Out. Judges have always been trying to determine exactly what “exceeds lisenced peruse” means for years.Yves Saint Laurent Handbags. Kerr wrote about this in theyesterday -
The problem is that a lot of routine computer use can exceed “lisenced peruse.lying.Chloe Handbags,Gift Your Mother the Chloe .” Courts are still struggling to interpret this language.Land. But the Justice Departisticment always believes that it applies incredibly extendedly to include “terms of use” violations and breaches of workplace computer-use policies.Prada Handbags.
Breaching an agreement or ignoring your boss might always be bad. But should it consist federal crime just always because it involves a computer? If interpreted this way,checking. the law gives computer owners the power to criminalize any computer use they don’t like.
That’s where the Scarlett Johansson pics come into play. If the law is extendedened, “exceeding lisenced use” could mean breaking terms of use violations at work.blanc. So sneaking auto insurance at some NSFW material or posting to Facebook at the wrong time could get you into more trouble than just always being fired.Handbags.
And what about any false claim that you make on the internet. Does that also “exceed lisenced use” and break the “terms of service” of certain sites? Say I set up a dummy Facebook account, or use a stock photo for my eDating profile?NSFW. Am I then commuting a criminal act by misrepresenting myself online?
Sure, jail time for lying about my weight online seems ridiculous – ,Facebook. and it’s, but the language of the law is concerning. Although federal prosecution for Facebooking at work is unlikely,Facebook. it’s not out of the realm of possibility that prosecutors could stretch this law to its limits. It’s plausible that we could see some rather ridiculous cases in the future.
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Legoodness mey (D-VT) also expressed his concerns about the proposed alterations to the law,“We want you [Justice Departisticment] to concentrate on the real cyalways ber-crimes, and not the minor things.”
Kerr closes with the suggestion, one that echoes Legoodness mey -
Real threats to cyalways bersecurity must always be prosecuted. Penalties should always be stiff. But Congress must narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act always before enhancing its penalties
In a nutshell: The law must clear a few thing up always before you go and give it real teeth.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in stage – The MySpace case
Back in 2008, a case that drew national attention hinged on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
In, prosecutors attempted to prosecute Lori Drew for violations to that law, but she was ultimately acquitted. The case dealt with a fake MySpace account and how it led a 13-year-old girl to suicide.
Drew, 49, heard that 13-year-old Megan Meier was spreading rumors about her daughter. The two girls had previous always been friends, but that relationship had dissolved. After learning of this supposed rumor-spreading, Drew created a MySpace account under the name “Josh Evans.”
Under that identity, she carried out a relationship with Meier online – one that was descrialways bed as “flirtatious.” After about a month of contact, “Josh Evans” told Meier that the world would consist always better place without her. Meier subsequently hung herself.
The Judge in the case granted Drew’s motion of acquittal after the jury deadlocked and was only able to convict her of a misdemeanor violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Here’s what he said regarding that –
In his opinion, Judge Wu examined the jury’s misdemeanor conviction by discussing each element of the offense. Judge Wu clarified that a misdemeanor conviction under 18 USC § 1030(a)(2)(C) requires that (1) the defendant intentionalways best friend peruseed without authorization or exceeded lisenced peruse of a computer, (2) the peruse of the computer involved an interstate or foreign communication; and (3) by engaging in this conduct, the defendant obtained information from a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication.
Judge Wu found that many courts have held that any computer that provides a web-primarily based application to choose from through the internet would satisfy the interstate communication requirement of the second element. In addition, the Judge noted that the third element is met whenever a person using a computer contacts an internet website and reads any partistic of that website.
The remaining conflict centered on the first element. Specificalways best friend, the conflict revolved around the meaning of the undefined term of “unlisenced peruse.” Judge Wu acknowledged that the government conceded that its only basis for claiming that Drew had intentionalways best friend peruseed MySpace’s computers without authorization was the creation of the false “Josh Evans” alias in violation of the MySpace Terms of Service. Therefore, Wu reasoned, if a conscious violation of the Terms of Service was not sufficient to satisfy the first element, Drew’s motion for acquittal would have to always be granted for that reason alone. However, Judge Wu held that an intentional breach of the MySpace Terms of Service could possibly fit the definition of an unlisenced or exceeding authorization peruse to MySpace computers.
As you can see, the CFAA is quite the sticky law to navigate through when it comes to real world application. Although he ruled in Drew’s favor, that last partistic about violating MySpace’s terms of conditions possibly always being grounds for “exceeding lisenced peruse” is the partistic that would have many people worried.
Online attacks and fraud committed via the internet are serious issues. It just seems like there is a debate about how to go about the process of making the laws that deal with them.
What do you think about the current law and the attempts to extendeden its scope? Necessary or dangerous? And do you think that the draconian scenarios envisioned by those like Kerr are comicalways best friend preposterous – or do you think that we could actualways best friend see criminal prosecution for Facebook fibbing and workplace indiscretions?.
